From the National Post:
Following the rule that there has to be a magazine for everything, there’s now a magazine, based in California, that publishes nothing but rejected manuscripts. It carries an odd name, Rejected Quarterly (odd because it appears only twice a year). It prints “quality offbeat fiction” you can’t read in other magazines because the other magazines have already rejected it. Writers sending manuscripts must enclose five rejection slips. The editorial statement says that whatever other magazines want, “We don’t want. No other literary journal maintains such strict standards. First in the field of rejection since 1998.”
I look forward to receiving the legendary Chinese rejection:
The Chinese Rejection may well be an urban legend but it’s been rattling around the word production industry for at least half a century. Did it actually originate in China? Did anyone ever use the full text to explain why a piece of writing was rejected? No one knows. Still, it’s been printed many times and now appears in several places on the Web, described as a translation from Chinese:
“We have read your manuscript with boundless delight. If we were to publish your paper, it would be impossible for us to publish any work of lower standard. And as it is unthinkable that in the next thousand years we shall see its equal, we are, to our regret, compelled to return your divine composition, and to beg you a thousand times to overlook our short sight and timidity.”
Oh, man, almost all of my rejections have been by email, and I haven’t been keeping them!
We love stories about rejection, don’t we?
If I really hate the person, then yeah, sure.
That article kinda reminds me of the “top ten” unproduced screenplays articles that always make the rounds in the film industry (and related) publications. Top ten because they’re really good, but unproduced but no-one wants to take the financial risk to try and make them.
And I think “the rejected quarterly” is a great idea for a literary journal.